Both supporters and critics of neoliberal reforms adopted by African countries during the past two decades argue that donor conditionalities have been counterproductive and should be abandoned. Several studies claim that, when donors have forced governments into implementing policies to which they were not committed, they either failed or were reversed and aid money was wasted. Furthermore, because investors perceived that African governments were coerced into enacting reforms rather than implementing them on their accord, they did not find the reforms credible. Fear that governments would reverse reforms in the short term deterred them from investing in many African countries.1 As an alternative to conditionality, some scholars and representatives of international financial institutions now contend that neoliberal reforms are more likely to succeed when national governments own them, that is, when they are committed to implementing them.2 In the case of austerity measures typically recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the logic of the argument is straightforward. If governments balance their budgets, stabilize their exchange rates, and improve their balance of payments, then growth (success) will occur.3 With regard to more structural reforms (such as changes in property rights), the reasoning is more complex. If government officials implement policies on their accord, in the absence of conditionality, they will be more committed to them. If they are more committed to them, the reforms will be successful. Part of the reasoning here rests on the notion of credibility. For example, if investors believe the government is committed to the sale of state assets to the private sector, then they will be more likely to invest. If investment increases, the policy reform is a success.4 The shift of emphasis from conditionality to and the linking of government ownership to a successful outcome pose several conceptual dilemmas for neoliberalism. The dilemma begins with the notion of commitment or ownership. The emerging perspective treats as if it is an action that a government can or should adopt unilaterally without acknowledging the risks such an action entails. How or what makes commitments credible is not specified, nor is there recognition of the role that social forces might play in molding, thwarting, or accelerating a government's decision to neoliberal policies.